♪ host: good morning. the house and senate both meet at 10:00 eastern and we are with you until then. we begin with a discussion on social media and its impact on american culture. over the weekend you talk decried social media as a cancer that has gotten us addicted to -- over the weekend utah

governor spencer cox decried social media as a cancer that has gotten us addicted. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. send us a text at (202) 748-8003 . on social media on capital acts it is @cspanwj and on facebook -- on x it is @cspanwj and facebook.com/c-span. it was on meet the press sunday that spencer cox talked about the cancer social media is having on society. [video clip] >> the damage social media at the internet is doing to all of us. the most powerful companies in the history of the world have

figured out how to hack our brains, get us addicted to outrage which is the same type of dopamine you get from taking fentanyl, get us addicted to outrage and get us to hate each other. i am seeing it in real time since the tragic death of charlie kirk. i am seeing it in every corner of our society. the conflict entrepreneurs are taking advantage of us and we are losing our agency. we have to take that back and give back to community, caring about our neighbors, the things that make america great again, serving each other, exercising and sleeping and all of the things this takes away. >> you refer to social media as a cancer on friday. that is a strong word. do believe social media played a direct role in this assassination? >> i believe social media has played a direct role in every single assassination and assassination attempt over the

last five or six years. there is no question in my mind. cancer is probably not a strong enough word. what we have done to our kids comp it took us a decade to realize how evil these algorithms are. host: host: spencer cox on meet the press on sunday. plenty of articles about the impact of social media. we will get to those but we mostly want to hear from you. your reaction to those statements by spencer cox and also your views on social media. have they changed since what you have seen over the past week, since the assassination of charlie kirk? (202) 748-8000 free democrats. republicans (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. we start in new york with rob on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you so much for c-span.

god bless. i am probably addicted to c-span at this point. the thing that scares me about what is happening on our internet is that there is apparently reports that russia and china are doing things on our internet to influence our thinking and our behavior. if you think about that, causing us to have more emotional responses to one side or the other side. i have plenty of republican friends. i have plenty of republican friends. sometimes i think i have more republican friends than democrats. i don't know why that is. on many issues i do side with republicans.

one thing i never do is get into any heated exchange with my friends that have the alternate view on the other side, never. i try to understand by friends. sometimes i have friends that are strict and stern and how they view some of what is going on. we always come together as friends and put it aside. i understand the positions and the arguments from the republicans, some of which i agree with, sometimes you find people have allegiance to a conspiracy theory. host: host: you mentioned the state-sponsored actions to fan the flames and certainly a concern that has been brought up by political leaders and by national security officials. something they have tracked over the years. if it is a state-sponsored

threat to the united states to try to divide us should there be a state-sponsored response to that? should the federal government do more to regulate what is said or the images that are seen on social media? is it up to the government, is it up to the social media companies? is it up to individuals? who can help? caller: everybody. host: you would be ok with a federal response to try to tamp down on some of this? caller: when you hear a wild theory you know is not based on anything. when you can see on the internet, you get that gut feeling this is either ai or somehow it is generated in such a way you know it is not based in fact or reality, yes. i wish our president would have passion over this type of thing

when it comes to dealing with russia and china. he talks the talk but he does not walk the walk. there you go. host: this is bennett out of maryland. line for republicans. good morning. caller: thank you so much for having me on. i wanted to talk about the democratic party's strategy of having a big tent of supporters. one thing the democrats need to understand about conservatives is there is an acceptance issue of a lot of the public behavior among democrats. in the last few years republicans have been forced to accept things like drag storybook hours at public libraries, indecent displays in parades. now what we are learning about with the shooter as he was

engaging in animorph sexualized fetish stuff. just as political violence is a greater than 50% democratic party issue, there is no question about it, it is between 50% and 100% without a doubt. host: bring me to the social media question that we asked. have your views on social media, what we are seeing online and how people had to have engaged with each other has it changed since wednesday? caller: i think people use social media to score points against each other. people need to get off social media completely. it is completely toxic. people cannot control themselves.

i think people are replacing normal human interactions in the presence of humans with an online dialogue and when you have such anonymity it gives you the perceived freedom to act in a way you would not normally do. it is creating a toxic environment it is a negative feedback loop that becomes exacerbated. host: would it surprise you that what you just said just then sounds a lot like what a progressive liberal social media influencer on twitch and other channels -- it sounds a lot like what he told politico in his interview. he was supposed to have a debate with charlie kirk in two weeks. he debated charlie kirk in the past. he is in influencer on the left

and politico asked how do you maintain your humanity absorbing images like what you saw today and being on increasingly digital world. this is his response. he said "my family and my friends and going out in public is the perfect antidote to the vicious nature of the internet. people become a lot more cruel under the guise of anonymity right there is a cliche like you would not say that to my face or you a keyboard warrior and in some respects that is true. i feel like a lot of people are far less vicious when they get to see the other person and get to be around the other person and before the technological availability that was the overwhelming majority of our relationships. it was always in person. i think we have lost that. that is how i try to keep myself as grounded as possible which is ironic since the political violence such as this also makes it harder for me to go o in public.

that is why i said i cannot let fear dictate my life." hasan piker, popular left streamer. what you make of those comments and how similar it sounded to what you said? caller: i would agree totally with what he says. i don't agree with a lot of what he says but he sounds like an intelligent individual when it comes to that issue specifically . the question america needs to be asking itself is what leads people to self-isolate behind a computer screen for significant periods of time and allowing themselves to become immersed in dangerous twisted content -- when the framers talk about the first amendment they did not talk about some of the things that people engage in today.

there has been this evolution of thought. i think the online community creates an environment where these niche ideas can flourish and they become expanded upon in such extreme ways. it is sad to see gary -- it is sad to see. host: this is chris in d.c.. independent line. caller: i have never been a fan of social media. i don't have any of the platforms. i like that we are having a civil discussion. there is a political ideology going on. i don't think the government should get involved. there is always this preaching of smaller government, smaller government. that is actually going in the

ruhr's -- in the reverse direction right now as the government is getting into everything. the can of worms is open and i do not see it going back because many people feel is a way to not only express their voice but make a profit and push agendas at the same time. i am not a fan. people at the top who run these companies definitely do not care what is happening at the bottom because they are getting rich. although i do not agree with everything the governor of utah says, especially how he is releasing some of the facts. i think his statement about social media is spot on and correct. it has exploded since covid. we are going on a dark path because there are probably millions of podcasters and influencers who have very young

influential able to be influenced people listening to them. as the gentleman said absorbing content where there can be in the privacy of their home, anywhere at any time and flip on the phone and get the content they want that might not be correct content. guest: you said you'd -- host: you said you do not think the government should be involved. i mention that is a free-speech argument. the government cannot define what can and cannot be set. is that where you stand? caller: yes. host: what about this as a way for the government to get involved. congressman randy fine has proposed legislation to highlight the flow of money behind ideas on social media. he says "i'm requiring a bill from protesters and influencers to disclose when they're being paid in by who. these are political actors no different than political

candidates who have to disclose for their support comes from." with that be a good thing for influencers to have to disclose if they are being paid and where the money is coming from. without help shed some light on where these ideas might be coming from? caller: i am open to considering that. only if the politicians would do it as well. when they are campaigning or when they are pushing an agenda -- let me go back to the campaign thing. ever since citizens united corporations have exploded their input into financial coffers. where is the transparency? i am for transparency, especially if it is transparency across the board. if you will be pushing for internet companies to be disclosing their income or where

their money is coming from i think politicians should be obligated to do the same thing. host: let me head to new york. republican line. stan. thanks for waiting. caller: thanks. in the society with our laws as far as free speech, capitalism, this is the risk we run. it had to happen. host: is a risk worth running? caller: no. look what we are becoming. the capitalism side, money. the freedom of speech side, telephone tough guy. that is what we used to call them back in the day. we used to call them telephone tough guys.

you can hide, like the other guys said. you are free to say whatever you want to say and nobody knows who you are or where it is coming from. telephone tough guy. as far as trying to mitigate that, not in a society with free-speech. you cannot do that. as far as what you said about the government regulating it, saying who is paying you and where this is coming from, that may be a good idea because that may expose people and they would be scared to get exposed. that is the point. everyone is a telephone tough guy as long as they have that anonymity. then they do that. if you expose them it may curb it a little bit. host: that is stand in new york. to facebook, this is rebecca writing "we've long known humans the need to be part of a group.

is a big problem. group that seems to think like they can desensitize people and help normalize abnormal beha ultimatelyugh the problem seems to be individuals blind faith in the information they're receiving and acting on at." that from our social media feed on facebook. this is derek in oklahoma city. independent. what is your view on social media in american society today? caller: honestly i believe social media does affect the masses as far as how they feel about situations. beyond the killing of kirk you have the stuff they put on there with police. the stuff they put on there with israel.

we have to go back to common sense. we need to get back to common sense. host: what does that mean. it is helpful if you turn your tv down. what does that mean to go back to common sense? how do we put the genie back in the bottle in a world of every kind of social media imaginable? caller: i would say pick up a book and read. pick up a book and read. host: that is derek in oklahoma city. it is just about 7:20 on the east coast. having this conversation about social media in the wake of the killing of charlie kirk and the wake of comments by utah governor spencer cox calling social media a cancer on american society. phone lines for democrats,

republicans, and independents. the house is in at 10:00 eastern and the senate is in at 10:00. at the white house president trump is set to leave about 8:34 a state visit to london -- about 8:30 for a state visit to london. on capitol hill at 9:00 eastern kash patel is set to testify before a senate judiciary committee. we will be covering that on c-span3. we will be here until 10:00 a.m. a busy morning in washington, d.c. back your phone calls. this is lynette in illinois. democrat. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that when we

say the government steps in, the government represents the people of the united states. it is not the government stepping in, it is we the people. we need help and protection because these companies, the owners, they are so rich, they need some type of regulation and incentive to do the right thing to protect us. right now there is no law that prevents them from being sued and when they do something wrong they try to pay a few million dollars to each user which amounts to about $100 per person and that is not an incentive to do the right thing after they have done something wrong. they pay us a few dollars and on the case is closed and they go back to doing something else. they are so rich.

i think it is because of rape -- i think it is because of greed and just like in the 1800s when the civil war was starting, like that same situation where the greedy wanted people to work for nothing as slaves the government has to step in. it is we the people that need to step in and protect ourselves. the last thing i want to say is we risk -- is i respect that governor in utah. i am thankful he talked about getting along and taking a different approach. i pray our president will take an approach to reach out to the democrats and be peaceful with them and not call us demons. i am a christian. it offends me when he says i am daemonic or when they talk about democrats being terrible. i feel like if the president wants peace like he is helping

in europe and israel why doesn't he help the united states get along and love one another and be peaceful? why can't he reach out to the democrats and why can't they try to get along? that is worthy of getting the peace prize. thank you for taking my call. host: you mentioned president trump. yesterday in the oval office was asked about whether social media companies bear some responsibility for the spread of paid online. he responded as well as his attorney general. [video clip] >> the shooter was radicalized online. >> when i say that that is my opinion, i think he was radicalized online. >> do social media companies bear any responsibility for that? >> i would ask pam that question. somebody has to bear some responsibility. >> i have always told parents

you have to watch what your kids are doing on the internet, what they are doing online, what they are reading. they're all online and on their phones all the time. parents have to monitor that because it starts when you are young. when you listen to these groups and you watch the shows. parents have to be vigilant. that is part of it. they are meeting kids online who they think our kids they could be anywhere in the world they are being radicalized. -- in the world. they are being radicalized. guest: he went bad very -- >> he went bad very quickly. he led a sort of normal life. the more along the lines something happened. host: president trump and pam bondi yesterday from the oval office. here are a few of the headlines from the front pages of today's papers on this topic. this is "the washington times."

a dark online world of gaming and memes emerges behind charlie kirk's assassination. this from "the new york times." "the white house threatens a crackdown on the far left in the wake of kirk's death claiming a network is behind violence. comments from jd vance and stephen miller yesterday saying the white house is bowing to do more to crackdown on the far left." we will talk more about that with some of their members of congress who will be joining us later this morning. for now your phone calls asking you about social media and your views on it in the wake of charlie kirk's assassination. this is tony in detroit. good morning. caller: i don't think that social media is to blame. i believe that people get stuck on one side and they only listen

to what is their way of thinking. there is more than just one side to any equation. it is more than just the way you want it to be. there is also the truth. when you have these mental gymnastics that goes on in this country, like donald trump and his team, they spew forth a lot of deception but then it is mental gymnastics. the next thing you know they are demonizing the democrats who are cowardice almost. if someone from the left opens their mouth, oh my god, it is the end of the world and they are daemonic. if the right all day long they spew forth these evil

suggestions and things and it is not them. it is good -- social media is good overall. people only want to hear what they want to hear when they want to hear it. until truth is put back into this we are always going to have problems. that is my take. host: let me come back to vice president jd vance's comments yesterday while he was hosting charlie kirk's podcast as a guest post on that program. this is the vice president yesterday. [video clip] >> the last several days have been extremely hard for our country, hard for me, hard for our family and the countless people in this building who knew and loved charlie kirk and they have been artist for his darling wife erika and their two beautiful children.

every single person in this building owes something to charlie. he was a joyful warrior for our country. he loved america and devoted himself tirelessly to making our country a better place. he was a critical part of getting donald trump elected as president, getting me elected as vice president. so much of our success is due to his efforts, his staffing, his support and his friendship. i do not think i am alone in saying charlie was the smartest political operative i ever met. everyone knew him as a fearless debater, this guy who would take the conservative message and the hostile places and inspire younger generations to have courage. one thing that has hit a lot of those young americans over the last week was how charlie was there for them when others were not. when they were afraid to speak their minds, when they were afraid of what a professor would say, when they were afraid they would be shouted down by their

peers, charlie was there showing them they could be courageous and they could be bold. host: vice president jd vance hosting charlie kirk's podcast yesterday. this is alex in delaware republican. good morning. caller: i used to tell people the internet and computers was the worst thing ever invented. now there is a lot of people i know tell me i was absolutely right. i wish there was some way they could do away with the internet. this world would be a way better world because it is not causing anything but trouble to everybody in this world. that is all i have to say. host: this is carol, line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. a couple of things. i believe there are pros and cons of social media without a doubt, especially as it relates to our young people. i am a retired teacher but i still substitute teach in our schools. this is the first year the state of texas passed a law requiring our students to not have their cell phones out, to keep their cell phones off. from what i've seen so far is it is working. when they were out during the course of the class they are still absorbing a lot of social media. as far as the government getting involved in texas, i think it was just last week a memo came

down from texas education agency put out by our governor greg abbott to fire teachers who are on social media speaking negatively about charlie kirk, which is quite interesting to me that something like that is just now coming down surrounding a person of the character of a charlie kirk. here again, the government is getting involved here, even to the extent of firing teachers. i think close to 800, they have gone through their facebook and social media records and looked at that, which is astonishing. host: i've heard that referred to in the past couple of days as

a form of cancel culture. would you use that term? caller: yes. definitely. it is going to make you think twice -- it is dealing with our freedom of speech. what you post on social media. the last thing i will say is this regarding governor cox of utah and him saying it is a cancer. there are pros and cons about social media. what is interesting to me speaking of social media, somebody posted on facebook the pictures of 15 to 20 white young males who have engaged in shootings over the last year or so. i don't know the time period. if indeed social media is

driving this, white males are not the only ones on social media. it is black people, young black people, brown people. i cannot buy that. that is what it is all about. there is something else going on. i agree with julie reed when she said -- i agree with joy reid when she says there needs to be a larger conversation held about why our young white male so angry? we cannot blame it all on social media for the reasons i just stated. i think there is something else going on. the only people who can hold that conversation would be the people on the right. there needs to be a conversation. something else is going on with our young white males. thank you for taking my call. host: this is tom in

connecticut. republican. caller: the governor is a little off on his message. the cancer comes from the legacy media and the democrat leadership who are at this point -- the left is the far left. while the far right is not the right. the far left is the left because they are openly calling republicans nazis, fascists. they are promoting this ultimatum for their listeners, people on social media to openly attack and use violence. that has to be resolved. host: in your mind, whatever you see is the far left, how much of the left is the far left?

do you think the far left represents 50% of the people on the left? 5%? in your mind as you envision at what is the far left and how much of half of this country is the far left? caller: two months ago i thought it was a small percentage of the far left but i'm starting to see that there is a large population of leftists. they have the old marxist type mentality of the rich and the poor and the class. the contagion from europe has infected the united states with marxism. we still have a conversation.

victor david hanson it is an example of free speech that tells the story rather than promote violence. that is my opinion on the situation. host: that is tom in connecticut. this is on facebook. "social media is a tool and in intent is a weapon. with bad i don't blame social media i blame the person with bad intent. everyone wants to start personal responsibility. if you get in a wreck you do not blame the car you blame the driver." this is gilbert in ohio. independent. caller: i talk you about seven weeks ago and i'm glad i've got to you again. if you can help me out. i believe social media is a cancer and democrats and

republicans -- every politician uses social media to try to emphasize their power. yesterday you guys were communicating in regards to -- the law in this country has been watered down so much. we do not take the law -- the law is not done properly anymore. they have watered it down. host: what you want to see from the law? caller: you bring up immigration a lot. my dad became a citizen in 1958. i had an uncle in 1951 that was allowed to join the army during the korean war. he got his citizenship papers.

host: bring it to social media. caller: follow the law. i am talking to all democrats or republicans. let's follow the law. thank you. host: to the garden state, this is mike. caller: good morning. i would first like to say that social media is largely a vehicle for misinformation and disinformation. we have looked at social media for close to two decades and that is what the output is. i am a software developer. what can be regulated is the algorithm that drives curating information by emotionally manipulated people. we can possibly write a regulation to have these companies disclose their algorithms so we know -- so

people or society have a better understanding about how these algorithms work and how they are manipulating people. host: if we know a social media company has an algorithm that drives the most content intended to outrage you you think people walk away from that one in the market of social media will improve? caller: i think so. the companies that generate these algorithms, they are working with neuroscientists to elicit the response of always staying on their site. ultimately they are driving ads. you have neuroscientists, mathematicians, and software developers building a system where a user gets on and they are emotionally pushing the

buttons of the user and sometimes it is rage and sometimes it is desire and sometimes it is whatever emotion you can feel just to keep you there. right? host: do you use any social media it yourself? caller: yes. i started working as a software developer in 2000 during the.com boom working on internet systems. i have been in the middle of it for my entire career. host: what do you use on a day-to-day basis? caller: i have uninstalled my apps because i realized is just too much. i used tiktok, use facebook. i am a democrat. i use blue sky. our use reddit. you can tell when you go to

these systems. you go to the software and you feeling fairly regulated and then in less than five minutes you are angry. the software is really good at emotionally manipulating people. that is the real danger of social media. host: this is gerard baker in the pages of today's wall street journal. "charlie kirk's assassination unleashes the antisocial media." it is a lengthy column. "what hurts especially hard in the wake of a terrible event is decrypting quality to all of this. -- is the drifting quality to all of this. the unending search for likes and clicks kicks into frenzy as a young man lies dying. this reflects the paradox of our newly democratized digital media. the majority of americans are

decent people appalled by violence and eager to respond with determination to do what we can to rooted out that the discourse is led by a small minority of opportunistic goals, not to mention a significant number of foreign enemies excessively promoting bitter divisions among americans. a historian will object that alarms about the contemporary media landscape are a historical. the modern web is only the latest forum in which the appetite for the worst in humanity has played out. the romans had their gladiatorial combats impact arenas. the medieval british had their public executions. there was no social media to blame for what went on in the minds of lee harvey oswald or sir answer him. -- more surhan sirhan. it is getting more like the french revolution and the terror of the 1790's, a civilization

more willing to justify violence." gerard baker in the wall street journal. just about 15 minutes left in this segment asking you if your views on social media have changed and watching what has played out on social media in the wake of the death of charlie kirk. this is john, new jersey, independent. caller: thanks for this opportunity. i view social media as an amplifier of a signal. it takes somebody's input and throws it across millions and millions of people which was never possible. the signal is in an old form. it even has a latin name. ad hominem. do not believe that guy, he is a bad person so what he says cannot be true. that has a latin name as a debating technique. now we have connected -- most of

us cannot afford a lot of downside to our decisions. we can be scared away by somebody telling us something terrible will happen if we do this or that. downsides are scary, they hurt us. we feel like they will take away something from us or hurt us. now you plug that signal into an amplifier called social media. it is designed to get clicks and amplify that hate. i think the solution has to be training our kids on how to sort the baloney from the signal. get rid of the noise and try to find the signal. at least know it is noise and you have an amplifier that is amplifying hate. host: if we are to train the

kids to do that to we know how to do that? can we sort the baloney? caller: that is a good question. it is the kind of thing you have to give to kids in public schools. a certain skepticism. i don't even know how i find out what is really true after looking at social media. it is not easy. the crazy stuff seems to outweigh the signal. the noise is louder than the signal. i don't know how to solve it except schools and parents have to teach their kids to be skeptical. that is about all i can say. i do not think there is an easier way out. host: richard in minneapolis. republican.

thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i want to make a few points. in the 1950's and 1960's we never had this. we had lee harvey oswald but not to the point today. it is so messed up on social media. i have a friend who said china attacked one of our aircraft carriers and he got that from social media and he believed it. then the reports say that tiktok in china, they have a much different look at tiktok because it is more educational. here in the united states people are looking at all sorts of weird things that have no value, no meaning, just something that is odd. i want to make one analogy to the shooting in minneapolis. i am a republican and i believe

they should limit these magazines to a few shots. it is duckhunting country. there was a law that when you go out hunting ducks you only get three shots. you have to put a plug in your shotgun. the ducks are not as valuable as humans. we give ducks a chance. if we had a limit on the magazines where that i would have to pick up another gun we would maybe have a chance to jump him and take him down. if we give ducks a chance when we give humans a chance? host: that is richard in minnesota. this is terry in texas. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. you've got my name right. it seems like whenever i call in

you are on the air it seems to have the topics of most interest to me. i have got to say mike from new jersey, the software developer, he is 100% right. there is a documentary on netflix that came out about four or five years ago that i would encourage the viewers to try to find. i am not pumping netflix, i am pumping the documentary. it is called "the social dilemma." i don't know if you have had any of the folks on from the organization that created that which is the center for humane technology. the documentary will wholly explain what is happening to us with social media and what it is doing. as mike said, it is designed to keep us giving as much screen time as possible because the

more we are on those platforms the more advertising money they make from ads. one of the things they talk about -- the people in the documentary are essentially the early designers for facebook and google and x and they talk about some of the things -- some of the psychological things they did after receiving psychological straining for how to basically check our brains to make us want to constantly stay on those platforms. things as simple as the thumbs-up or thumbs down on facebook -- we want immediate gratification. when we make a comment we want to see how many people like it. how many people dislike it. what is the reaction? you stay on that platform looking for that and while you

are there waiting to see how many comments or likes or down votes you got your scrolling and other places on that platform. if you have not been on facebook in a while or people you've not necessarily interacted with for a while, you will suddenly get a little pop-up. you missed this story about john and what he has been doing lately. that is to get you signed back into facebook and give them more screen time. when that documentary first came out it really -- i was struck by how addictive -- by how addicted even i was to social media. it also has a dramatic story line through it to where it shows you how a young person can become radicalized by constantly being on social media and feeding the rage machine because

the algorithm continually pushes the content you search for. one less thing i will say -- two last things. the tech industry refers to people that are on those platforms as users. the other industry -- the only other industry that refers to its customers as users is illegal drugs. people who are addicted to drugs. they are considered users. the last thing is people need to think about why they are able to now use their google emails to sign in to other platforms. your information, it just gives the social media platforms another end to see what your interests are so those algorithms can continually push

whatever you search for on google. whatever you have done on google now the social media platforms have that. host: you recommend the netflix documentary. and i give you two recommendations would two recent books we have covered on book tv. you can watch the authors talk about these books. the first is "like: the button that changed the world." martin reeves explores the origin of the like button. one we aired i think this past weekend, "if you don't like this i will die." the social media influencer talking about being on that side of the like button. two books that have got a lot of attention we have covered on book tv. caller: thank you so much. i will definitely check those out. host: devon is in maryland. independent. good morning. caller: honestly i am struck by

the last caller and how succinct they were. what they had to say. it kind of put me -- i'm just a little shocked. i agree with the sentiment. my point being is i think that a lot of times what happens is people take information out in the public eye and they assume it is with good intentions. they assume the person saying it has your best interest at heart. they are telling you because it matters to you because they care about you. unfortunately that is not the case. they want to something just like everyone wants something. money, fame, glory, whatever. all of that lame stuff that influences every person. i am not trying to hand wave away human interaction as that was -- as though it is some

boring and bland thing. i guess i'm a little worked up because i've not thought too critically about what i wanted to say. i'm just listing and being washed over with the ideas of the american population. i appreciate it and being able to come to a place where there is a level of earnest i've not been able to experience on social media. i think that might be another route to the problem with social media is nobody is trying to be earnest and honest and truthful and vulnerable with other people. everyone just wants to make money or push acceleration is him or make things worse or whatever. i am not sure what every person's motivation might be. i do see people are typically on the dumber side when it comes to information and they assume no

one is being influenced by anyone else. they are saying things because they believe them. on something like this, c-span, you can probably assume i'm not being paid any money to say anything. i cannot see what i have to say as being particularly profitable. i would like to say i am not being influenced by anybody and i feel as though my thoughts are my own and i'm not being paid. i think if i wanted to say something in particular it would be that social media, if it needs to do anything it needs to force people to make clear when they are being paid by someone to say something, be it at government, another country on the other side of the world or whether it is a domestic company in america. we have conservatives that go about their day pushing messages for money the same way we have democrats and leftists and acceleration nests on the far right side -- and

accelerationists on the far right side. host: congressman randy fine, a republican, has legislation that would do that for social media influencers and protesters and others to disclose if they are being paid for content. that is something he had talked about. appreciate the call from maryland. a couple minutes left. i did want to note two more columnists, younger columnist for usa today joined together to write a column today. "after kirk assassination, gen z is watching." they write "the video of the shooting was nothing short of horrific and it was inescapable. it made the rounds on social media, particularly on x. the videos not the first time we've witnessed someone's death proliferating online. this occurred in 2020 when george floyd was killed in minneapolis and his have been

regularly for the last two years as the israel/hamas war and the war in ukraine have taken thousands of lives. at a certain point we are becoming desensitized to suffering. while one could argue these videos are important for understanding gravity of the situation it is also important considering what it does to us mentally in dating with the trauma of others. when we share the videos will reduce a person's of life to the act of dying, denying them recognition of their full humanity. we allow them to become talking points in our never-ending discourse. seeing them as individuals with the capacity to love and be loved. individuals we must ask what good comes of sharing the videos. continuous exposure to the worst part of human nature cannot be good for our mental health. social media's need to do their part by providing a warning label to keep videos like the one of charlie kirk's death from automatically playing online." this is michael in new jersey. democrat.

caller: i want to make a couple of points. even though i am a democrat i support the utah governor's comments. i was prior military. i don't play social media. i do not do any kind of social media platforms at all in my life is very simple. i keep all of that garbage out of my life. i just watch the news, i may watch youtube. my life is simple without any social media and it is really hurting our children. it is influencing them to do things like flash mobs in crime. it is silly. it is detrimental for our children. the second point is charlie kirk was a good guy. i've watched some of his youtube videos. this guy did not even have a college degree and he went on

these campuses -- i don't know why the colleges even allowed it. he challenged these kids on opinions. he was entitled to do that. i think part of the thing is that he brought it upon himself. host: that is michael in new jersey. this is already in pennsylvania. independent. caller: it looks like i'm the last one and the one aspect of censorship is the time someone has to talk. social media is a tool of the cia. this was written in an article in july 11. x former cia director william casey says we know our disinformation campaign is working when the american public

believes everything is false. people have to realize social media there dual-purpose. for them the leaders and the rulers to disseminate what they want the public to jump on and to spy on comments in relationships and all of that. we are in awe are in a matrix ae are trying to realize what the truth is. one last observation. how could you have a major crime scene, charlie kirk, and then have everything picked up immediately? nothing was left there for forensics and nothing was there to collect any evidence. it was scooped up by people that most of them were handlers and they picked them up.

even ambulance services will not pick up about it. host: our last caller in this segment. stick around. coming up in about half an hour democrat mark pocan of wisconsin joins us to talk about the upcoming government funding deadline. but first, it is phil dickinson of the atlantic council to preview president trump state visit to the united kingdom. we will have that conversation right after the break. ♪ ♪ >> middle and high school students, joins c-span as we celebrate america's 250th anniversary. during our 2026 c-span

studentcam documentary competition. this year's theme is, exploring the american story through the declaration of independence. we are asking students to create a documentary that answers one of two questions. what is the declaration's influence on a key moment from america's 250 year history? or, how have its values touched on a contemporary issue that is impacting you or your community? we encourage all students to participate. consider interviewing topical experts and explore a variety of viewpoints around your chosen issue. students should also include clips of related c-span footage which are easy to download on our website c-span's studentcam competition awards 100,000 dollars in total cash prizes to students and teachers. and $5,000 for the grand prize winner. entries must be received before january 20, 2026. competition rules, tips, or how

to get started visit our website at studentcam.org. >> past president. why are you doing this? this is outrageous. >> this is a kangaroo court. >> this fall, c-span presents a rare moment of unity. ceasefire. where the shouting stops on the conversation begins. join politico playbook chief correspondent and white house bureau chief dasha burns as host of ceasefire. bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue to find common ground. ceasefire. this fall on the network that doesn't take sides. only on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the atlantic council's

phil dickinson joins us now to preview president trump's state visit to the united kingdom this week. it is the president's second, dating back to his first term with a different monarch. how unusual is it for one head of state to have two state visits? guest: it is very unusual. unprecedented, and fact. this is one occasion where it is fair to use that term. it is only the fourth state visit by u.s. president, and for two of those to be president, trump, that says something about how important and significant that is and just how eager the british government is to invest early and build good relationships with this administration. host: you cannot drop a history negative without telling us the other two. guest: president bush in 2003 and president obama in 2011. host: how did this will come about? guest: from the prime minister made his first visit to the white house in february this year.

it was the day immediately before the oval office meeting that president trump had with president zelenskyy. i think keir starmer would say his oval office meeting went a lot better. there was a lot more friendliness and the first floor the prime minister did at the start of that was to pull out the letter from the king, inviting the president to this state visit. as soon as the election result was clear number 10 in london would have been figuring out how best to build good relationships with president trump, knowing that keir starmer, the prime minister, is not necessarily cut from the same political cloth as the president. he is more of a buttoned up lefty lawyer type, which does not necessarily scan as very maga, but the prime minister has really worked hard to build that relationship with president trump, and this is the icing on the cake of all of that work. host: what is on the agenda?

guest: state visits are in two parts. the president will arrive later today, but wednesday is the day for all of the royal pageantry where he will be greeted by the king, all of the pomp and ceremony, the inspecting of the troops, state and quit, white tie, all of the great historical, fancy things you associate with a state visit. then on thursday it will be government business. a bilateral summit held at checkers, which is the prime minister's country residence. on the agenda there will be on the bilateral side. the trade relationship. trying to pin down some of the details of the trade agreement. and they will be looking to have some big investment announcements, some big ticket wins that both sides can celebrate. and then there will be the big

foreign policy questions, which for the prime minister first and foremost is ukraine. u.s. support for nato. and what the presidency in europe looks like going forward. and also gods as well, to see where they might be able to lean on the administration to put pressure on prime minister netanyahu. in a helpful way. it is a very tricky subject for the prime minister domestically. host: what does a successful state visit look like by the end of this visit for keir starmer? guest: they will be holding their breath until the press conference happens, so that will be taking place on thursday, and as you know there is a lot of unpredictability around press conferences with president trump. but he will be hoping the investment in all of the pageantry and the respect paid to president trump will pay off there and he will have nothing but good words to say about the u.k., and they will be able to

show some to the domestic audience in the u.k., some tangible wins. either a cutting of tariffs on steel and aluminum exports to the united states, agreements around tech, around civil nuclear, things like that. the mixture of the personality and conviviality of the visit, if you will, and the substance of getting some agreements across the line. host: what is more important to keir starmer right now? does agreements or the bigger picture, foreign policy, ukraine , israel, and gaza? guest: that is a great question. the prime minister right now i think it is fair to say is going to a difficult moment in his premiership. he has been in power for a little over a year and his poll numbers have been suffering, and the challenges on the right in british politics are seemingly ascendant. he has had to deal with a couple

of issues recently. he has had to lose his deputy prime minister and the ambassador to the united states just in the last few weeks. those have both happened. success for him is about getting his premiership back onto an even keel. it is about getting the public narrative around him as prime minister and around how this government is performing on a positive trajectory. i think there is a general sense that he has handled the relationship with the united states well so far, that he has shown great leadership on issues like ukraine. so, delivering on the domestic political agenda is really first and foremost. host: it might be helpful to remind people why he lost his u.s. ambassador. guest: yes. he had links with jeffrey epstein. and recently emails came out that showed he was encouraging jeffrey epstein to fight the

legal challenges when he was first prosecuted for child sex crimes in 2008. host: phil dickinson is our guest, of the atlantic council. a deputy director of the transatlantic security initiative there, taking your questions and calls ahead of this very big state visit taking place over the course of the next couple of days in the united kingdom. president trump is scheduled to leave the white house in about 20 minutes to head to andrews air force base to head off for that visit. we will see if there is time, for your questions and comments, and what it means for the special relationship. now would be good time to cut in -- call in. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in, go to

the pomp and circumstance of this. this is happening at windsor castle. why? guest: logistically buckingham palace is undergoing renovations at the moment. and also parliament is in recess. perhaps you could say that is not necessarily accidental. there will be a lot of protesters in central london and the government knows that the president doesn't want to have to be -- you know, to scan and see protesters in earshot and in his eye line. this is a useful way for the government to kind of manage that dynamic without shutting down people's right to protest. and windsor castle is a favorite of the king. it was a favorite of the late queen and is a glorious venue in its own right. host: for americans who might think one castle is like the next, what is the history? guest: windsor castle is just outside of london. it is near heathrow airport. it is an ancient castle.

it sits on the top of the hill in the town of windsor. the most recent news around it was in 1992, when there was a major fire that destroyed a lot of historical artifacts and treasures, which was one of the reasons why the queen described that as an -- for her. host: what is the relationship to king charles as far as -- how far does that go back, and what is the role of the royal family, sorted the soft power side of this whole visit? guest: king charles was very present and active in the last state visit in 2019. i know he had extensive conversations with the president back then, and the king is known to be sort of a strong advocate for his personal issues and core beliefs. one of which is around environmental protection and stewardship of the natural world. so, i know that he will want to make some points there around

sustainability and some of his initiatives there. he is also a very strong advocate for ukraine, and, again, in february after that oval office meaning he publicly and overtly welcome to president zelenskyy, you know, in president zelenskyy's combat fatigues, etc., to the u.k. so, having a head of state who is devoid of politics but can help subtly nudge things along on some of those issues is something of a secret weapon of the british state and something the government needs to deploy somewhat sparingly to obviously protect the constitutional role of the monarch. but at specific times and moments it can be very effective, and i think given president trump's known affinity for the king and royal family, etc., this is one instance where

the government thinks, ok, let's deploy the royals. host: phil dickinson is our guest at the atlantic council, taking her calls and questions. carl is out of louisville, kentucky, langford democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. this is interesting timing. i was listening to the bbc last night and they have a story in it which is my go to when i cannot sleep. had a story about france and the troubles the government has there and the -- that there might be possible, something like what written did with brexit. is this kind of a rallying of the troops? what is your sense of that? you know, with our allies? that story made me think, i wonder what this has to do -- if this has anything to do with this visit? host: thanks, carl.

guest: thank you very much for the call. president macron was the last head of state to make a state visit to the u.k., and that was earlier this year. i think there is something that what you have hit upon is a unifying theme of some of the big political leaders in europe right now, which is that domestically they are struggling a lot. they're pulling is very bad. president macron in particular, obviously there has been a vote of no-confidence in the prime minister in france. he has just lost his prime minister. there was a lot of domestic political turbulence. so, projecting confidence and statesmanship is really important for the french president, for the german chancellor. for the british prime minister right now when they are dealing with difficult domestic political issues. as far as president trump is concerned, i think he is a lot less concerned with the domestic political struggles of his

french, british, german counterparts, etc. here it is really about him displaying his kind of statesman-like leadership on the world stage and demonstrating, you know, that he is having results that reflect the agenda on which he was elected. host: we should note president trump will not be alone on this. the first lady will be joining him. the u.s. delegation is also set to include the secretary of state, marco rubio. the secretary of treasury, scott bessent. the british ambassador, stevens. and white house chief of staff susie wiles is expected to be part of this trip. mlb writes in, keep in mind that the crent occupant of the oval office operates a business in britain, so cannot afford to offend him too much.

the trump organization's holdings in businesses, how does it relate to this trip and what is happening right now? guest: it is pretty unrelated. he has golf courses in scotland, which is where he was in the summer, and he signed various deals with the european union whilst he was at his temporary golf course in scotland. no, his own personal political, his own personal business, interest in dealings are not part of the bilateral agenda on this trip. host: james madison, mississippi, republican. you are next. go ahead, james. you are on with phil dickinson. caller: hello? host: why don't you give us a call back? it sounds like you are not hearing us. the wall street journal today, their story on this trip, the king rolls out the red carpet, is the headline.

you can see the police officer setting up outside of windsor castle, and they focus on the soft power aspect of this role of the monarchy here that first part of this trip. what is donald trump's relationship -- he talked about king charles already come about the rest of the royal family, how did they view donald trump? guest: the royal family will be tightlipped about how they view anybody in world politics. i'm not going to pretend i have any insight on how they feel personally about -- host: are they allowed to have an opinion? guest: privately they will have an opinion, but constitutionally, no. they are there as representatives of the british state. they are there as partners of the prime minister and the british government. on a personal level, you know, they may well privately behind closed doors. i'm sure people have seen "the crown," etc.

people have tried to lead -- read the tea leaves as far as who was the queen's favor prime minister. but constitutionally they are not. host: how much say does the royal family get if keir starmer says, this state visit is important right now, there is a lot of big domestic and foreign issues that we need to get settled and it would be very helpful for us to roll out the red carpet. and they say no? guest: they can, but it would be unusual for them to say no on such a key big-ticket priority. if he goes around and says i want to have 20 state visits a year and let's take off every country we have tricky bilateral issues to negotiate with, they will push back. i think both sides know where the lines are. host: phil dickinson, our guest, taking your phone calls.

the lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. what you did -- what did you do before? guest: i was a diplomat with the british foreign office. in u.s.-u.k. bilateral political team. prior to that there were postings around the world. sri lanka prior to the united states and a mission to the u.n., beijing, and some jobs in london in government. guest: did you ever get to go to a state dinner at the white house? host: i did not. i went to a lot of white house functions and parties, but not a state dinner, no. i cannot quite get that high. host: is it fair to call them equivalent? a state visit to the united kingdom and a state dinner at the white house? or is one bigger than the other? guest: i'm going to say that the u.k. one is bigger, obviously. the history, the scale, the sort

of royal pageantry of it. i think people in the u.k. take good pride in that. you cannot sort of magic up 1000 years of history and tradition out of thin air. it is something that is built for a long time. the white house events are certainly very grand and spectacular. so i'm told, because obviously i have never been to one myself. but i have been involved in a lot of ministerial visits to the white house. host: which prime minister's did you work with? guest: rishi sunak when he was here in 2023. yes, when he was here to see president biden again. ukraine, really key issue for him. but i think it is fair to say that we have had quite a few time -- prime minister's. host: which prime minister-u.s. president pairing in your mind had the best working relationship? guest: in my lifetime and

personal memory i would probably say tony blair had great relationships. both with president clinton and president bush in very different context. tony blair -- tony blair and bill clinton were very ideologically aligned, when president bush came to power obviously 9/11 happened shortly after and tony blair was really his strongest and staunchest supporter on the world stage. and they both kind of went through the experience of the iraq war together. tony blair was really sort of wedded to president bush from that point on. and then historically i think people would also point out to president reagan and margit thatcher, who had a particularly closely-aligned worldview and close working relationship together both as cold warriors. host: this is chris in

sykesville, maryland, republican line. good morning. caller: how's it going, guys? host: what is your question or comment for phil dickinson? caller: i, now is i completely agree with -- well, him talking about tony blair and bush, i'm only 33, but as i remember those days that is what stuck out to me as these guys were talking about it. i've got to jump in at the wrong time at the conversation, so i apologize. i don't think i'm going to make an intelligent comment. i will get out of your hair, but my last name is roberts and i am british. host: that is chris, who is british. this is today's politico. a different issue talking about the united kingdom. it relates to our previous conversation and topic of most of our conversations in recent days. the headline, turning point failed in the united kingdom, but charlie kirk didn't. lake conservative activist has a surprising following across the

atlantic. can you comment on that? charlie kirk's influence in your home country? guest: i don't know about his personal influence, but certainly the brand of politics that he represented has a growing following in the u.k. i think there are similarities in a lot of the political trends we see across the western world. the last time the u.k. and u.s. had very kind of mirrored political moments like that was in 2016 with the brexit referendum, shortly followed by president trump's election. and a lot of the similar trends and themes you have here in the united states find similar -- they are rhyming, with a certain degree of politics in the u.k. it plays out differently, but there is a growing sense that

young men feel alienated from the political process in the u.k. and the reform party, which is, you know, for political system that has two stable and historic main parties, reform is a new party that much more closely reflects the political themes and style that you see in donald trump's republican party. that is, you know, they are come from nowhere, really. the political leader there, nigel farage, is doing well in the polls, and i think that is a lot of the domestic political pressure that keir starmer is sensitive to. and so, again, coming back to the state visit, that is a big part of the dynamic for why making this relationship with donald trump work is really important for him. both in the substance, but also effectively responding to

criticisms he has got domestically from the right. host: aubrey wants us to come back to the epstein files. isn't it true that even people in the united kingdom want to know where the epstein files are? guest: it is a story that is, for obvious reasons, really shocks and appalls people in the united kingdom, as well as the united states. the history of prince andrew's relationship with jeffrey epstein is something that people are very aware of. it is very controversial and sensitive in the u.k. host: it might help people to remind people about that story, prince andrew. guest: he was a longtime friend of jeffrey epstein, and the queen, she, you know, removed him from his royal duties in response to the allegations and scandal around his relationship with jeffrey epstein. host: 10 for one or two more calls.

this is wisconsin, chester, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good. what is your question or comment? caller: i had a question on the kirk question just asked about charlie kirk. he said there is a slight following. does that mean that the young white students and people in this country kind of have the view on people of caller and the disenfranchised that charlie kirk? guest: very good question. difficult question. the history of race relations in the u.k. is, indeed, very sensitive and difficult one. the black lives matter protests when they took off in the united states in 2020 really resonated

in the u.k. as well. and so, where you see a lot of the polemic in u.s. politics, u.s. politics and culture and dialogue as a real strength in the u.k. so, when you see one phenomenon emerge in the u.s. it tends to be not long until you see similar phenomenon appearing in the u.k. as well. i certainly would not portray all young people in the u.k. is having this view or that view, but i think you see a lot of similar political dynamics amongst different demographics in the u.k. a very complex and difficult subject, but something certainly to keep watching. host: here's another difficult subject for our final two minutes. we spent the first hour of our program today talking about social media, and have people's

opinions changed on social media over the course of the last week? in general how does the united kingdom treat social media differently than the united states? are there different safeguards in place? and do you run into these freedom of speech issues that we run into here? guest: the freedom of speech issues have been very front and center. a lot of people in the american right have criticized the u.k. and argued that freedom of speech is under attack in the u.k. i personally would disagree with that. we don't have the same -- we don't have a constitution in the u.k., so we don't have specific articles that protect freedom of speech in the kind of way. so, the government takes a slightly nuanced view. i think in the u.k. on freedom of speech and how people can be held account for hate speech and hate crimes and things like

that, the government has more that it can do in that respect. but the government is putting forward new online harms, online safety and security legislation to try and protect young people in particular from being exposed to graphic content online. that has been kinda folded into some of the debate about where the lines are on freedom of speech in the u.k. whilst we don't have the constitutional definitions, the political debate around the issue is alive in the u.k. host: certainly a topic we should follow up on down the road. for now, phil dickinson with the atlantic council, atlantic council -- atlanticcouncil.org is where you can go to see his work. he will let you get to your day. guest: thank you very much. host: after the break, a conversation with two lawmakers on both sides of the aisle with

her -- about the government funding deadline. first it is congressman mark pocan, a democrat member of the appropriations committee. and later at 9:30 a.m. eastern we will be joined by republican pat fallon of texas. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> welcome to the program. >> thank you. it is good that c-span is still funded by the government. >> it is not funded by the government. what do you mean? >> you don't get money from the government at all? >> know we do not, and never we have -- and we never have. >> appreciate the opportunity to come on. >> i wish we could have 1000 c-span's across the medium spectrum -- media spectrum. >> i think c-span is a huge asset to america.

not just the coverage we get of both chambers, but programs like washington journal that allow policymakers, lawmakers, personalities to come on and have this question time during washington journal. it is a huge benefit. i hope these streaming services carry c-span as well, because it is an important service to the american people. >> i'm thrilled this time i am getting substantive questions from across the political aisle. >> our country would be a better place if every american watched one hour a week during they could pick 1, 2, 3 just one hour a weekend we would be a better country. thank you for your service. >> get c-span wherever you are with c-span now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of force -- floor proceedings and

hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. catch the latest episodes of washington journal. find scheduling information for c-span's tv and radio network. plus a variety of compelling podcasts. the c-span now app is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span. microscan filter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: mark pocan joins us from capitol hill. he is the chair emeritus of the progressive caucus. i want to start in the wake of last week's shooting with charlie kirk. how would you describe the political moment we find ourselves in as a country right now? guest: scary. bluntly. i think the idea that political speech or political actions that somehow can be -- find violence

in response to it is really scary and the fact that somebody could be assassinated like a state representative or political commentator, whether they are on the writer the left, is not what this country is about. that is what people should talk about. i think a lot of people are misguided on what the issue is right now, but no one should be afraid of expressing their political views and putting their life at risk for doing so. host: what is a congressman to do right now? is there legislative action? how do you feel personally when it comes to your safety? guest: there is a lot of talk about security right now. security is probably more lacks than it should be. that is true for the supreme court. that is true for the executive branch. that is true for the legislative branch. you will see come -- you will see something coming out of congress. when you look at the paul pelosi incident or the various incidents we have had, unfortunately all too often lately it shows we need to at

least protect people who are serving us in government and they think at all levels there is a recognition we need to do that. host: would you agree that under spencer cox, social media is a cancer? guest: i like to use the word sewer, but i will agree. social media allows people to anonymously say really 80 arctic, hateful things. i can also watch a dog jump over a couch, and that is good, but where it is taken, especially with political speech, is too far. i don't know if i have a quick and easy solution. platforms have to look at their guidance policies a little bit, but it seems like especially recently some of the people who are most radicalized are radicalized by online platforms and online communities. host: should the federal government forced those of social media platforms to have -- to take that hard look and do something about it? guest: we should have oversight

over these platforms in some way, period. there is a lot of things, from what they do with our personal data. should have oversight over those folks who become billionaires and we are really risking people's personal data, to probably what they are doing when it comes to some areas but we have to remember, free speech is a foundation of the united states, and just because you don't like something that someone says does not mean you can either act violently or you can cancel them. right now we are seeing a lot of canceling people in their positions for saying stupid things. unfortunately, or fortunately, you have a right to say stupid things. that is what the law is. if we are going to change that then we have to change a little bit about who we are as a nation. i do agree there is a slippery slope right now to -- a member of congress from a neighboring district wants to stop funding for the entire city of eau claire wisconsin that has safety 7000 people because he

misunderstood what an older said. that is scary. that is going beyond the normal response we should have. we are going to have to kind of be smarter and more adult-like in how we are dealing with this. host: some headlines about the events from yesterday in the wake of charlie kirk staff. this is the new york times. white house threatens a cracked down on the far left. jd vance blaming left-wing extremism when it comes to charlie kirk's death. stephen miller talking about a vast domestic terror network and vowing to crackdown on that. what is your response? guest: i would say look at paul pelosi. look at the state rep and her husband in minnesota. those are democrats. politicizing this is the only thing maybe worse right now. watching some of these people take advantage of a terrible situation where someone was assassinated for their views. if you do it intentionally i think there is a special place for you, maybe, down the road. but i think that is really

efforts to change who we are as americans and change what this country is. that is a dangerous slippery slope and we are going to have to be careful about that. host: congressman mark pocan with us until the top of the hour. if you want to join the conversation here are our phone numbers. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.as folks are calling in lemon get to your appropriations committee work. where ucs going over the course of the next 14 days on funding? guest: this is an incredibly disorganized congress. the appropriations process normally is done by about june, so we can get it on the floor and vote for it before the august break. we've only got a couple of bills make it to the floor. there is a lot of work that has to happen and we are not even close to having that where it needs to be. having said that, that probably means there will be some kind of

continuing resolution. but the republicans are in charge. if they are not getting our votes, and essentially they have not been, they're not doing anything serious to do that -- look, they are in charge of the house, senate, and white house. they have to figure this out. and we see the white house to rescissions of funding congress has in a bipartisan way approved and congress does not stand up for our sponsor abilities and the constitution it is our job to do that funding -- it is hard to have a deal with these folks. they are going to have to get their members, a lot of members on the republican side like to say they will vote no and then it takes time and they rollover and their bellies get rubbed. we are waiting for that to happen, but that is what you're watching for between now and the end of the week. much less the end of the month. i think something is going to happen this week. host: for continuing resolution, we mentioned member security. do you foresee new member security funding being attached to that continuing resolution?

does that hold up that process? guest: potentially, but we are in a different era. the entire appropriations process are refer to as fantasy. we go through the motions, but none is real. i don't know what they are able to do, but short-term cr is just saying we are going to keep government open and operating until we figure out we should have figured out by september 30, which is the deadline. to be fair, this happens with a lot of congress as we go along the deadline. i think there will be some additional things like that probably added because we are not having a great record of passing legislation right now other than the big ugly law that is now a law. they can only get a couple of things to move and then after that all we do our past cra's, which are disapproval of things joe biden did. last time i looked it is probably time to do other legislation, but this congress with a tight margin, this

republican majority has, has been unable to take on major things. even the farm bill that we keep kicking the can on. host: one thing that has been mentioned as one of those things that could be added to the cr, new sanctions on russia. do you think that is likely or no? guest: who knows with this majority? seriously, i have been doing local, state, and federal government for over 30 years. i have never seen anything like the time period we are in right now. how we respond to political assassination's, how we respond to having budget bills, how we fund essential services for our constituents, this is a time where it -- where it is anything but normal. we completely acquiesce to one branch of government, the executive branch. i have never seen it like this. i don't know if people can make prognostications with any certainty. host: plenty of calls lined up for you, congressman.

we will start on the line for democrats. this is alex out of ohio. good morning. caller: morning. i have been listening to your man and talking about social media and that sort of thing before. i was wondering, with all of the different platforms out there, i have been retired for a number of years and i have been watching c-span for probably about six years now. like i say, i have been doing a lot of listening, but i have never heard of this charlie kirk before he got shot and suddenly he is a good guy and suddenly he is a bad guy? i'm wondering why some of his posts have not been out there that the public can hear what he is saying to our young people. is that all private? nobody could not hear it except for who he is talking to? host: there is plenty out there,

and you can go to his websites and social media pages, all still out there. i wonder, have you ask younger people if they know who charlie kirk was? because he very much had a following among a younger audience. caller: i'm going to be 90 my next birthday, so my kids are in their 60's, and they both -- my daughters have both heard about this guy, but they have their own opinions. but coming no, again, it was not like a discussion topic that we would ever bring up. i'm wondering why, you know, some of the new -- news shows don't say something about that. i have to get on the internet to find out what he is saying? anyway, he had quite an influence on people, i'm sure. younger people. so, that's all it got to say. host: turning point usa.

his network. mark pocan, do you want to talk about his influence? certainly there was that provigil on capitol hill last night. did you attend? guest: no, i got off -- in after that. and i would not have attended. this is something where people are kind of rewriting history. i think we have to be careful of this. first of all, you can get targeted messages through social media and the internet right now. certainly that is how it is across the spectrum. charlie kirk said a lot of things that people consider very awful toward other people. he had, i would say, an extremist viewpoint. but among that group of extremists he was extremely popular. and right now you are seeing a bit of a rewriting of history. but if they really put down some of the things he said about differing groups of people you may not have the same perspective that people are trying to put out there right now. having said that, there is no

reason whatsoever for any political violence for his thoughts. and that is the issue we should be focusing on. but there will be people who try to take advantage of a situation like this to change how much free speech we have and who can have a job and not have a job and say things. that is the real danger. it is not so much that charlie kirk said anything unique, because honestly i have seen and heard a lot of the things he has said from other people from more fringe political perspectives. it is, what happened in response to him having that right to say those things? that is what we need to address. host: this is mike out of maryland. republican. good morning. you are on with congressman poking. caller: congressman, nice to speak to you. i think the internet is the war that is being sanctioned and filtered. not really social media. social media is doing the service to the citizens and people, because they get to speak unfiltered in most cases. we saw a lot of filtering.

really it is the internet. that is being controlled at the country, and actually a post-national level. really we are trying to keep our internet open, and right now social media is being attacked. really, it is the solution. you said political violence is not the solution. i agree generally speaking, but violence is sanctioned. it is really a problem when the people who create war are being statistically targeted. that is when they want to stop the violence. but when they send the soldiers off to fight for their agendas, then it is a problem. when a person has an agenda it is not ok. but when the politicians have an agenda it is ok. you have any comments on that? guest: i will take your comments -- your second point. i think there is something to violence. if we make it less so that people think it is ok to attack someone or kill someone for their speech, it is a good point. on the first point, the internet

i looked at as a platform where many things happen. it is social media and maybe some of the larger places where people get their media. the problem is the only get what they want to see by the algorithms, and that intensifies some people, especially if they have more extreme viewpoints. they think it is normalized. i think that is part of the social media thing. to me the internet is really just a delivery system, but social media is really with those book -- those algorithms. if everything you see is what you already believe and bordering on hateful, that may intensify those feelings and make people do things they think is more normalized. that is the problem. right now all we should do is, let's take the temperature down, everyone. doesn't matter who you are. if you are a progressive, a conservative, a moderate, you should not have to worry about being attacked or killed for your viewpoints. and we need to protect free speech, but we also have to protect people from any kind of

violence for expressing their thoughts. host: on the algorithms, there is a software developer who called in our first hour today. his recommendation was, some sort of federal requirement that these social media companies have to disclose their algorithms, saying if they did that we know which ones are driving the content meant to trigger us. that we will know which ones are driving the worst content to us, and then we can let the market of social media bloom by letting people choose, do you want an algorithm that is trying to trigger you or do you want an algorithm that is less focused on getting you to stay online? what do you think about that suggestion? guest: i think that is one of the more significant suggestions out there, because it is those algorithms that lead us to get the information we get. but, look, right now there is

something broken. we have to deal with it. the problem is congress years ago got rid of nonpartisan technology bureau that gave us advice. if you have ever watched a congressional hearing talking about technology, call it cringe worthy is an insult to cringe worthy. we need to have the best expertise. i'm not sure if the average member of congress is the best expert when it comes to this technology, but we should talk to those experts, like your caller. one of those suggestions is looking at those algorithms. host: rhonda, jersey shore. you are with congressman poking. caller: hi. good morning. i have a question for you. this shooting really devastated me. i'm not a charlie kirk supporter. however, he is an american. and he was loved by a whole lot more people.

what i can't understand, with our congress, why can't we put an amendment on the floor of the house where we are allowed to vote the american people on banning high-capacity magazines and assault rifles? why can't we make that decision? why are we allowing the national rifle association to kill our families? this is disgusting. he did not just get killed this week. they had another school shooting this week. you've got gang members in certain districts buying illegal guns. nobody knows where they are coming from. we have to do something. it has gone too far. host: congressman?

guest: i appreciate the passion. i think a lot of us have it. we had a school shooting the day charlie kirk was killed. then we will have a moment of silence if there have been killings on the floor, and that is it. we never have a moment of action. trust me, for someone who has been here almost 13 years it is infuriating to see no action come out of congress all too often. you are right. the nra has a lot of money and power politically. the nra is not gun owners, the nra is gun manufacturers who benefit from selling guns. that is why that big money just manipulates too many members of congress. that is why if the leaders follow we need more grassroots action from people like your caller to make us do the right thing. because we are the only nation that has the sort of -- the number of killings by gun death and there has got to be a reason we can address that clearly there is. it is some of our gun laws and some of the -- what we see, the

violence in culture being allowed to loosely -- so, continue that passion and force your elected officials to do the right thing. keep reaching out to them. call them and make sure you are heard. host: to build in the buckeye state, independent. thank you for waiting. caller: hello. this is bill, and i have been thinking about one of the names that was thrown around i think that tripped this trigger, so to speak. nazis. if people knew their history and understood that hitler's found his way to power by killing people in front of him, the ones that he didn't agree with and may not allow him to get to power. that was the beginning, in the 1930's. was able to kill the people that

were in his way to power. i think as far as guns, it is a simple situation. a gun is a tool used for different things. hunting is one of them, the other thing is, you don't want to give a three-year-old a circular saw -- circular saw either. it is the same thing as guns. people have to grow to a point where they have common sense to know what they have in their hands. host: congressman poking? guest: there are a couple of thoughts there. we have to get better control over guns. especially -- especially certain types of guns. the automatic and semi automatic weapons that can cause so much damage, but you don't actually use hunting. the first part the caller said, my fear is -- and there are some people who will take advantage of a horrible situation like this happened. and already i'm seeing it.

there is a database of 50,000 people who said something bad about charlie kirk since his death and they want all of them fired or a member of congress introducing legislation to say they could take away funding from the city of 67,000 people because of one or two people's comments who work for that city. that is going too far. that is something we have seen in history and we have to make sure is not replicated. this is an important time for us to have calm and perspective. to respect each other as much as we humanly can when it comes to political discourse. but i don't want this to be something that is taken advantage of, that takes way more freedoms. already we have had a slippery slope of loss of freedoms in the last year. host: from what you have just described of the -- the database of people who have said something, i heard the term cancel culture thrown around in the past couple days. would you use that term? what do you think about the history of that term being used

against members of both sides of the aisle? guest: it shows how ignorant sometimes people try to think we all are when we are doing this. it is cancel culture for one political group. but not the other. cancel culture is cancel culture. if you are going to make a database -- i have never heard of this before -- of 50,000 people who said something and now you want to make them lose their job, which i think is extreme already, and to go the extra step and take away funding from the city of eau claire, wisconsin because one altar said something you don't like? that is beyond normal, right? we cannot let that reaction to what happened to be an overreaction. right now there are people either for self-serving reasons or emotional reasons having an overreaction. we need to get together and say political violence is wrong, period. i think that is the important part. then figure out how to make sure that we are finding ways to

lower the temperature and also protect those who are in the political sphere. host: just one more follow-up question. the caller started by talking about the history of adolf hitler. do you think we throw around not too often? guest: probably, but also i think it is important people know their history. if you know the history of what happened you will know there are certain events that sparked overreactions. and what we don't want to happen is happening again. you can see an overreaction to an incident like this that cannot be it for the country, just like it was not good for germany and the people in germany. this is important. that we know our history and we learn from the lessons of history and one lesson we have to know right now is that any overreaction to any issue could be manipulated by some with bad intense, and we can't let that happen. we are the greatest nation on the planet for many reasons, and

we have to continue to be that. i think significant changes could harm us. host: just a couple of minutes left with congressman mark pocan. this is in new jersey, a republican. thank you for waiting. caller: just quickly on cancel culture, i want to remind everybody that in trump's first term we could not talk -- anyone that voted for him could not talk about voting for him without having a threat to their social life. after that -- after january 6 we had groups of people online searching through all of the footage, dedicating hours of their time to report people to the fbi and have them locked up. just about two months ago you cannot walk around with a tesla without having your windows broken. so, i think it is really indicative this cancel culture stuff is more about a sick society. off of that i do not think the government should be doing anything about it. i think if a representative wants to do any kind of leader

in any form wants to do anything about this problem we need civility back and i have yet to hear anybody on either side say, this happened, not this specific thing, but in a tragedy. you know your language may contribute to that. just say, i apologize if my language has contributed to this. you never hear an apology. it is just a disavowal of violence. we need leadership to set the tone where something that happens, even if it was not anyone's intent -- it never is. i never assume it is anyone's intent to have anything terrible happen, but i think it would do a lot of good for the country when one side has an issue, just an apology anywhere for the language. that's all i got to say. host: congressman, i will give you the final 90 seconds. guest: i have heard some of

that. from what the caller brought up, he may be one of those folks that gets a certain line of information from his social media. january 6, people were attacking the capital, attacking members of congress and wanting to hang the vice president. this is people saying something about charlie kirk after he passed away that they did not like him. this is a significant difference, and i don't want to try to equate the two. people may get that information through their social media feeds, but he is right. we have to lower the temperature in general. i have said things i regret later, and so have other folks. i heard that from both democrats and republicans. the problem is it is the people that the cameras go to our some of our more vitriolic folks. there is a joke in washington that you don't get between so-and-so and a camera because you are going to get run over and hurt. because that is what they are looking for. that is part of the problem. maybe it is self-policing, but we have to realize there are other viewpoints out there and we have to actively seek those

viewpoints so we get a more rounded perspective then maybe our social media feeds give us. host: we will end up there and let you get to your day. congressman mark pocan, democrat of wisconsin. we always appreciate your time. guest: thank you. appreciate it. host: coming up, more of your phe lls. you can go ahead and start dialing in now on phone lines. for democrats, republicans, and independents. at 9:30 we will speak with republican pat fallon of texas. stick around. we will be right back. ♪ >> i have been watching c-span "washington journal" for over 10 years. >> this is a great format that c-span offers.

you're doing a great job. i agree hearing everybody's opinion. >> i am a huge c-span fan. >> i think c-span should be required viewing for all three branches of government. >> i love c-span. >> thank you everyone at c-span for allowing this interaction with everyday citizens. >> it is an amazing show to get real opinions from real people. >> i appreciate your nonbiased coverage. >> i love politics and i love c-span because i get to hear all the voices. >> c-span is the one essential news network. >> america remarks 250 years and c-span is there to commemorate every moment from the signing of

the declaration of independence to the voices shaping our nations future, we bring you unprecedented all platform coverage exploring the stories and spirit that makes up america. join us for a remarkable coast-to-coast coverage celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can. america 250. only on the c-span networks. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of products and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. >> if you ever miss any of

c-span's coverage find it any time at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline tool makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at 10:00 eastern the house meets and the senate meets as well. we will be showing that on c-span2 and c-span1 respectively . the house on c-span1. on c-span three fbi director kash patel testifying before the senate judiciary committee. the chairman chuck grassley is

offering his opening remarks right now. when kash patel begins his opening statement. we will show you a little bit of that but you can also watch it in its entirety on c-span3 and streaming at c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. also today president trump is leaving for his state visit to the united kingdom. the pomp and circumstance expected to happen mostly tomorrow. the president set to arrive today. it is taking place at windsor castle. the president is supposed to leave from the white house in just a few minutes and we will see if he takes comments from reporters when he does. a lot happening on capitol hill and here in d.c. we are in open forum. any public policy issue or political issue, now is your time to call. phone lines for democrats and republicans and independents as usual. mommy is up out of iowa.

a report -- bonnie is up out of iowa. a republican. caller: i would like to challenge the previous speakers comments when he described charlie kirk as extreme and on the fringe. the first issue is abortion. charlie was criticized for saying he would want his daughter who will now never see her father -- he had set if my daughter were raped i would want her to bear that child and he was lambasted for it. what is extreme about a grandfather which is what he would've been saying i don't want my daughter to kill my grandchild? that is not extreme. it is not fringe. that is the correct framing of that response. not criticizing him for being cruel to his daughter. the second issue where he was criticized was saying that biological males do not belong in women's sports or and female

bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, or prisons. that is an issue that is 80% agreed upon by everybody in the united states. obviously that is not fringe. that is not extreme. i call out your guest for describing charlie kirk as those things because those are the two positions for which he was most criticized. host: that is bonnie in iowa. this is bill in maryland. caller: good morning. i cannot agree more with the lady from iowa. she hit the nail on the head. what caught my eye attention with the congressman -- i listen on the radio so i cannot see the graphics. i thought he was a reporter or a pundit when i first heard him but when he cited paul pelosi incident as an example -- i knew

immediately where he was coming from. the reality is the paul pelosi incident is not an example. my understanding is paul pelosi knew the person that assaulted him. that was not political violence. what i wanted to bring to the attention of the audience and the congressman if he was still on his political violence is initiated when people like maxine waters say pushback, don't allow them in, tell them you're not welcome. when chuck schumer stands in front of the supreme court and says he will unleash the whirlwind. names the justices by name. then you have somebody showing up at brett kavanaugh's house

prepared to murder him and kidnapped him. then you look at these mass murderers who are obviously motivated by the lgbtq concerns. what i would like to see is the democrats scale back their rhetoric and start debating the issues rather than attacking us, those of us who are conservatives for the views and beliefs we hold and we have a right as americans to a spouse in the first amendment and also a right to organize and assemble , which is what charlie kirk was doing. thank you for letting me share that. host: johnny is in daytona beach, florida. line for democrats. caller: i'm just calling on behalf -- charlie kirk do not need to die that way.

at the same time he was speaking separatism, that is not good for our country. certain kinds of guns should not be on the streets. that is why we have the problem we have. we have to become better than that. we cannot keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. it is not going to happen. you want to say what you want to say, don't be foolish and delusional thinking one side is better than the other. it is not. we have always been america. host: that is johnny in florida. this is new jersey, republican. caller: two things. check the video from kamala harris and all the extreme liberals. fascists. nazis. what you think is going to happen. if anybody remembers what did he

write on the bullet when he shot mr. kirk? it said fascist, catch. this is all coming from the left and this is the problem. when you tell people that mega people and everybody else are an extreme threat to the united states, what you think will happen. host: what is your solution in terms of political speech? caller: political speech, in other words hate speech, political speech there is certain speech that should not be allowed. you cannot be in a movie theater and yell fire when there is no fire. if you see the liberals and the left, trump is a fascist -- host: how do you define hate speech in who gets to define hate speech? caller: how about just common sense. every time there is a shooting liberals are guns, guns. guns do not kill people, people

kill people. look at prohibition when liquor was illegal. if you wanted it you could get it. you could put a ban on this kind of gun. if these psychotic people want to get the guns they will get them. pre-much everything today is common sense. if you label people a fascist which the left does and say they are a threat to the united states or our way of living, who do you think these brainwashed 22-year-old kids on the internet are going to do. fascist, fascist, and that is what he writes on the bullet. host: that is michael in new jersey. john and wisconsin. independent. caller: thanks for taking my call and i am sorry i missed the representative. one of the caller said something to the effect of charlie kirk's

assassination with high-powered rifles with large capacity magazines. one of my main points is concerning the second amendment and firearms in general in general who grew up in a concrete jungle they do not understand or have any knowledge or even their basic research of the types of firearms and magazines they hold in the capacity of the magazines. the firearm used to assassinate charlie kirk was a bolt action rifle. it was a high-powered rifle. i have one for deer hunting and that is all use it for. it's capacity is four rounds direct this is not a high-capacity nothing. my other comment is on social media. i think that is the scourge of the entire world.

social media and frankly the internet. i use social media to watch youtube videos on how to fix my washing machine or lawnmower. the majority of people that deal with the internet are watching this ridiculous instagram, tiktok, everything. i just don't agree with that at all. things for taking my call and i wish of -- i wish i could've gotten a comment from the congressman. host: this is jay in long beach, california. democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i've been listening to your comments and everyone's comments about freedom of speech. i cannot figure out why everybody is so worried. i'm afraid to say this, i'm afraid to say that. this is the united states.

this is not a third world country. just because somebody says something does not make it true. i can sign a piece of paper and say i am the president. you need to be following the constitution and the unconstitutional supreme court ruling is very questionable as well. that is just my thoughts for today. thank you for taking my call. host: sheila in ohio. republican. good morning. caller: i am an 85-year-old widow, mom, grandma, great grandma and great great grandma and i would like to say charlie kirk represented -- the main thing he wanted people to remember him for his his stand on faith in god. the problem in this country is not constitutional, it is anti-god. it is people. if jesus christ was here on

earth today they would still kill him and put him on the cross because he told people sin is what is going to get everybody. what everybody does not understand -- god is not contingent upon you believing or me. he is god almighty. everyone will stand before him one of these days and give an account for everything. charlie kirk was known and he stated himself he was a saved born-again christian. when we put god back on the highest point in this country things will change. it is evil against good. may god bless all of you and i say to everyone out there that believes in abortion, male or female, have you ever gotten on

your knees and thank god your mom did not agree with you. thank you. host: that is sheila in ohio. jay is in california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just had an idea as far as the internet and how it is set up. it is an entertainment based internet. by utilizing the united states post office and adding a digital po box to all households and making a non-propaganda internet and narrowing digitally the purpose of the post office for communication and secure property is a free communication highway people can communicate with the representatives at the

representatives can communicate with their constituents. all of the money wasted. host: who gets to decide what propaganda is and is not in that circumstance? in that scenario? caller: you can present both sides. like c-span, people decide for themselves. if it was an open forum similar to c-span. people would decide for themselves. it would be more of a platform -- people instead of getting ads on tv and all of that would just communicate directly with your representatives. host: that is j in california. indiana. this is david as we wait for kash patel to begin his opening statement. go ahead.

caller: i certainly don't want to take mr. patel's time. this is very short. i think there are very simple answers. i've been asking people and i have sent this message to all of my congressman and senators. take the words "they" out of your vocabulary. let's do that for six or eight months and see if it is not cool things down. host: have you tried that? caller: what i have tried to do is smile a lot more. i think that works. host: that is david in indiana. this is nancy in florida. republican. caller: good morning. i would like to respond to a guest kimberly hat on sunday. i do not remember his name, i

cannot find it right now. he was a longtime critic of charlie kirk, which is fine. i think my problem with it is since he was a longtime critic and having civil debate, why wasn't this presented when charlie was alive and could have answered this? i think it is wrong to be piling on somebody who lost his life in such a tragic way, especially with that sunday show at this gentleman being a longtime critic -- we all have our opinions of who charlie is or is not which is fine. i think the program could have been a little bit more balanced or not at all. i think it was too soon. thank you. host: that is nancy in florida.

to parsons, west virginia. this is jim, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i listened to many of these republicans describing themselves or describing charlie kirk -- he is gone now, you do not like to speak ill of the dead -- he had some good points about him. he was a good christian person and stood for christianity which is a good thing. how you stand for things and how you praise things is very important. a couple of callers back someone was speaking about that he had been asked by a reporter what if your daughter got raped. i read that quote somewhere, i was reading some articles about all that that he was asked what if your 10-year-old daughter got pregnant, what a person want the

right for abortion to be available in extreme cases. the person that called in earlier to not say that, she just said his daughter. i heard a reporter asked him what if it did to your 10-year-old daughter? all of these different things. it is as if republicans do not hear what they say, what trump says, what charlie kirk would say about democrats. you forget about all the good things democrats have done for america through history and still today. instead of trump or charlie kirk calling democrats liberals and people and lazy entitlement bombs and socialists and cultural marxists, how is that speaking with any kind of respect as human beings about democrats? a lot of these things are agitated. it is agitating and taunting, being sarcastic and ridiculing.

how is that fair or decent? yet when people speak out against republicans, oh my gracious, you are trying to tear apart the foundation of america. i think republicans have an over exaggerated view of their own ideas at work at times. they are too denigrating and disrespectful to democrats. host: you talk about the good things democrats have done for america through history. do you think they are good things republicans have done for america through history? caller: sure. the old version -- the former version i grew up with and understood. it was my understanding through the 1970's and 1980's and 1990's about good conservative viewpoints. it is good to stand up for christianity. there are different people throughout to the billions of

people in the world that have different views on religion. we cannot dictate what everybody else's view is going to be. they have emphasis on being more frugal, not wasting money. there are decent things that republicans stand for, used to stand for. host: got your point. let me head to the senate judiciary committee. fbi director kash patel is getting ready to testify. [video clip] >> provide a briefing into the tragic assassination of charlie kirk. it is important the fbi is as transparent as possible without jeopardizing investigations. charlie kirk was shot at 12:23 p.m. on september 10. this timeline is critically important. less than a day later the fbi released the first set of images of the suspect we captured based on our analysis on the ground.

later that evening while conducting extensive interviews and cell phone analysis and also flying out evidence response teams and hostage rescue teams at evidence tacticians collecting evidence and live time and flying it back to washington, d.c. for immediate analysis we were able to extract video from the campus feed and at my direction at 8:00 p.m. in partnership and promise of working with the public to bring this fugitive to justice we released a never before seen video of the suspect. we also released new enhanced photos of the suspect. a few hours later that suspect was in custody pursuant to the interrogation of the suspect's own father who stated "when i saw that video that you released i recognized it was my son and i confronted him and he was handed over to lawful law enforcement authorities." that is the fbi working with the

public, being transparent and providing critical information along the way in the manhunt for the suspect or suspects involved in charlie's assassination. we received over 11,000 tips in the first 24 hours ago. we received 16,000 submissions to our digital enterprise and tip lines. that is a large number of material to go through. i want to thank president trump and attorney general pam bondi for their unwavering support to this and all investigations. i want to thank our colleagues in utah, the governor's office and the sheriff's, state and local law enforcement partnership has been a cornerstone since i took over at the fbi it was no different here. our teams in salt lake city, our lab tacticians who raced to complete the evidence analysis of the public and have the answers they need, these people work through the night without sleep for days on end. they are to be commended, not attacked. many more people i do not have time to think today. i want to thank the american

people. mission of the fbi is for them and with them and buy with and through them. it is that mission and that eat those that i've brought to this investigation. host: kash patel testifying before the senate judiciary committee. you can watch that in its entirety on c-span3. that is where we are airing that. here on c-span we will continue taking your calls. the house is set to come in at 10:00 eastern and we will go there for gavel-to-gavel coverage. the senate is also in a 10:00 eastern and you can watch that on c-span2. back to your phone calls. this is joe in charlotte, north carolina. independent. good morning. host: good morning -- caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. thank you to c-span for all of the excellent work they do. in charlotte we recently had a

very difficult murder. when charlie kirk was assassinated it was truly unfortunate that we as americans the difficulty that is family and friends and myself are going through. i did not know charlie kirk. i knew he was on tv. after his assassination i took the effort to learn who charlie kirk was. i did that by going on youtube and watching his debates on campus, watching his debate at oxford, at cambridge. this is an intellectual brilliant man who probably could

rival martin luther king or the kennedy family. he stood and talked to many students. all of diverse backgrounds. all of diverse opinions. he always invited those to come forward that disagreed with him. he just sat there. he stood there in oxford and cambridge and gave facts back to what their comments were. he also had phd's and professors that were also debating him and the debates were very civil and very informative. recently before his death he also went on gavin newsom's

podcast and for one hour sat there and talk to gavin newsom. what surprised me is the governor was much more factual than he is when he is on tv. he actually agreed with charlie kirk in terms of no men in women's sports and he agreed they should work with immigration to bring out bad people from his state. when charlie kirk challenged him to say these things on tv he acquiesced and disregarded what his comment was. host: that is joe in north carolina. mike is next. independent. caller: good morning.

thanks for taking my call. i've been listening. i really like c-span. i think people are making this entirely too difficult. you notice how in the last week or so the cities have been burning? hello? you notice how the last week or so all of these cities have been burning and there is riots going on everywhere and businesses being devastated? people are being hurt in the streets -- wait a minute. that has not happened. the difference is that is the difference between good and evil. you understand? that is the difference between good and evil. charlie kirk is not evil. he was never leading people. that has been done by democrats. they have let this fire.

they been lighting the fire for the last 30 years. it is unreal. no matter what, if you are a good christian worried about their own family, worried about the world around them, worried about their kids, worried about the united states of america, but then you have people that more than 50% of the democrats do a poll will tell you violence is fine. it is ok if you need to use violence. that is wrong. host: you have seen a poll with that number. caller: i watch it on tv every day. 50%. host: that is mike in kansas. 9:30 on the east coast and we are taking your phone calls. i did want to let you know the latest news. the death of robert redford, the

director, the actor, activist died at age 89. he had nine videos in the c-span video library over the years, including in 2016. president obama was speaking about robert redford's contributions during his medal of freedom ceremony. there is a little bit from those remarks. [video clip] >> when the candidate wins his race in the iconic 1972 film of the same name which continues for those of you have not seen it, many of you are too young. it is perhaps the best movie about what politics is actually like. he famously asks his campaign manager what we do now? and like the man he played in that movie robert redford has figured it out.

he has applied his talent and charm to achieve success. we admire bob not just for his remarkable acting but for having figured out what to do next. he created a platform for independent filmmakers with the sundance institute, he has supported our national parks and our national resources is one of the foremost conservationists of our generation. he has given his unmatched charisma to unforgettable characters like the sundance kid come entertaining us more than half a century. as an actor and a director and producer and an advocate he has not stopped. he apparently drive so fast he had breakfast in napa and dinner in salt lake. at 80 years young robert redford has no plans to slow down. host: that is obama on robert redford in 2016. this is the lead of the obituary from the new york times.

"robert redford big screen charmer turned oscar-winning director whose hit movies often helped america make sense of itself and who obscene evangelized for environmental causes and foster the sundance center independent film movement died early tuesday morning at his home in utah. he was 89 years old." this is peggy in michigan. democrat. caller: i go to church. i believe in church. what president trump and jd vance say about me, that i am evil. sometimes i go to sleep, that i should be killed because i am a democrat. host: that is peggy. this is anita in illinois. independent. caller: what good is religion

doing us? there is no life after death. this jesus christ scrap is exactly that -- this jesus christ crap is exactly that. the whole country is jesus christ jesus christ and the man is alive. the story about him is a lie. the church, everything that worships him is a lie. muslims are up a lie. host: did you ever believe what you mark have you been an atheist? caller: ever since i was three years old and my mother and father sued for the death of my dogs that were constantly getting run over -- they soothdr for the death of my dogs that

were getting run over. i would see them in heaven with jesus. i knew then they were lying. there is no heaven and hell. host: i want to take viewers back up to capitol hill. we are joined by texas republican congressman pat fallon for a couple of minutes ahead of the house going into session. i want to start with you on the question we asked congressman mark pocan, the democrat who joined us about an hour ago. it was how do you describe the political moment that we are in in this country right now in the wake of the shooting of charlie kirk last week and what we have seen since then? caller: i would say it is unfortunate. i would call it dangerous and pivotal. there is nothing wrong with having a spirited exchange of ideas in the public square. that is what our public was founded on. to then take it up to violence

or you take a life because someone disagrees with you. charlie kirk was a mainstream political figure. he was clearly right of center but he was right of center, he was not on the fringes by any stretch. it is unfortunate. what i'm praying for it to be candid is that nothing further happens. if someone else were to be harmed this could spiral into a dark place. i am praying all americans use the guaranteed protections we have within the constitution. we have a right to repress. we have freedom of speech. that is the way to channel any anger people have or any disappointments. they can become active. they can become masters of their own faith. host: is there anything we need to do about social media in this country? both on the front end of getting

people to a point that they might take an action like this and what we see on social media after incidents like this and how often we see it on our feeds. host: with a country -- guest: with a country of 300 40 million people you have people who have dark souls and you cannot let one out of the one thousand blind you to the other 999. also some of the comments we are sitting on social media, are they coming even from human beings? many are. it would suit russia and china and north korea and our other enemies very well to sit there and foment this discord and vision in our country. we cannot fall into that trap. i'm not going to let anyone let very dark soul filled with hate dark and who you are. -- darken who you are.

we have to look to the better angels of our nature that serves the country well also. host: if state actors are sowing discord in this country does it require estate action response by the u.s. government? guest: that is a very interesting question. it is going to be up -- you want to be careful, you are treading on thin ice. you want first amendment rights for americans and folks are here in the country legally. to allow a foreign actor to so discord via social media, it is new territory because the last couple of decades we have seen social media explode onto the scene. in partnership -- if there is a solution it should certainly be bipartisan. we should work with the social media providers. they took measures, i can recall them taking measures to ensure

the folks that are commenting on their platforms are indeed american citizens. that is something we should look at. host: what will be charlie kirk's legacy? guest: unfortunately he is a martyr, a 31-year-old kid. i say that now because i'm in my 50's. a 31-year-old man that was i think a genius in so many ways. it was a very good debater and i think he did have a kind heart. he showed that time and again. a beautiful wife and two little children. the legacy will be was a legend of free speech and all americans should celebrate his life. those that tend to agree with him more on the political spectrum will remember him fondly that we all should because he did it the right way. host: let me change gears to the funding debate on capitol hill. where will we be two weeks from

now? do you think we will avoid a government shutdown? guest: i not only hope, i think we will. i met with some of the members of leadership yesterday and there is a path. there are many different paths to a good place. i also sit on the armed services committee. every time there is a cr -- if you are on the armed services committee we call the china resolution because we cannot start a new weapons program in defense programs on cr money. we want to see a budget get past . we want to see the appropriations bills going through and we will do everything we can to get there. caller: -- host: do you think if we operate under a continuing resolution there will be money for member security in this issue that has popped up in the wake of charlie kirk? guest: i think there may be, not

only for the legislative branch but the supreme court and judicial branch. we have to take it far more seriously. we have been a bit on the lackadaisical side in so are folks who have interest in doing us harm. not just domestically but some foreign actors and certainly terrorists. i remember 9/11. 2021 -- 2001. we have forgotten some of those lessons. we have to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. you will be completely safe. you do not have to make it easy. do not want to be necessarily safe but safer. the last thing we want to see, god forbid, have some prominent political figure, whether they are elected or not is harmed in the coming weeks and months it is not going to be a healthy thing for our republic. host: another issue being talked

about as a possible addition to a continued resolution, additional sanctions on russia. where you stand on that? guest: i am all for it. i have been clear since 2022 that the aggressor was vladimir putin. we want ukraine to expel the invader. it's you create a functioning jeffersonian democracy in the classic form? not yet. but if you look historically like nations like south korea or taiwan took them about 50 years to get there. ukraine was 30 years long for it is because ukraine was not perfect does not mean we don't want to help them. we do not want to give them a blank check, but at the same time we have to do something. we do not want to do nothing and have russia win them over. secondary sanctions as a tool in president trump's toolbox. i would like to see our indian friends and modi understand the implications of cozying up to china and russia.

they are the world's largest democracy, we are the world's oldest and we are natural allies. i would like to see some more constructive actions on their part. these sanctions might help our friends on the subcontinent and others see more of the light. host: what would you like to see come out of this state visit to the united kingdom the president is headed to this coming days after the continent of europe is very concerned about the russian drone incursion into nato allied poland. guest: it reminds me -- i was speaking with the estonian general and he said no one unites nato like vladimir putin and then we had two new members with finland and sweden. i am sure the president is going. the special relationship is very

important with great britain, one of our oldest friends and allies. we have to show a united front. we've been doing that increasingly. nobody would've thought we could get many of our nato allies to commit 2% of their gdp to defense. now there is an agreement on 5% because there is a threat. it is unfortunate but it is the reality. starting with the major players within nato as far as gdp and the military would be us and the ritz, the germans -- and the brits, the germans, the french. the poles have become on very strongly. hopefully we can deter him. president trump was talking to putin in good faith. nearly putin was not great he is trained kgb officer. -- clearly putin was not. he is a trained kgb officer. host: where are you on the

petition for release in the epstein files? guest: i am for releasing them. the massey effort was sloppily done. we have an alternative that will release hundreds of thousands of pages. a lot of folks would think there is some file in a filing cabinet. it is not. there is extensive information. i fully believe in transparency, he just have to do it responsibly. the leadership effort from our party is the responsible way to do that. host: we will let you get to your day. republican pat fallon of texas. there is about 15 minutes left in the washington journal. it was just about 10 minutes ago president trump left the white house on his way to the united kingdom for that state visit. he spoke briefly to reporters. here is the president.

[video clip] >> mr. president? mr. president? >> stephen miran is confirmed? >> he is now on the fed. i will call him from the helicopter. he is very talented. you never know with too late. he has done a lousy job. the rates should be much lower. i just signed his document and all of the papers and stephen miran is now on. >> ground offensive is now underway in gaza city. >> we will see what happens because i hear hamas is trying to use the old human shield deal and if they do that they will be in big trouble. they put it out two days ago

they will use the hostages as human shields that is something that has not been done for a long time. if they do that, they are in big trouble. >> you believe the federal reserve is an independent body? >> it should be but i think they should listen to smart people like me. i think i have better instinct than him. all of the economists got it wrong, i got it right along with one person out of 100 they should listen to me. they have to make their own choice. >> did you speak to prime minister netanyahu? >> no i did not. >> about the idea of israel pre-getting a ground offensive in gaza city, do you support that? >> i don't know too much about it. if they put the hostages in front of them as protection,

they call them bodyguards, hamas will have hell to pay. >> your trip to the u.k. today, what you hope to achieve? >> my relationship is very good with u.k. and charles who is now king is my friend. it is the first time this has ever happened where someone was honored twice. it was a great honor. they have never used windsor castle for this before, the used buckingham palace. i don't want to say one is better than the other but they say windsor castle is the ultimate. it will be nice. i am there on trade. we want to see if they can refine the trade deal a little bit. we made a great deal. our country is doing very well. we are having trillions of dollars because of the tariffs. primarily it is to be with prince charles and camilla.

friends of mine for a long time, long before he was king. it is an honor to have him as king. i think he represents the country so well. he is such an elegant gentleman and he represents the country so well. >> robert redford passed away today. did you hear about that? asleep in his home. >> that is a good way to go i guess. robert redford was great. he had a series of years there was nobody better. this just happened i guess. >> what movie did you like the best? >> i would say he made seven or eight great movies. i thought he was great. >> are you going to delay the tiktok ban. >> we have a deal on tiktok. i will speak with president xi

on friday to confirm everything. we made a good trade deal. a very different deal than they made in the past. >> what companies are involved? >> we will be announcing that. the kids wanted it so badly. i had parents calling me, they do not want it for themselves, they wanted for their kids. they say if i don't get it done there in big trouble with their kids. i hate to see value like thrown out the window. you are talking about tens of billions of dollars. >> some auto executives are concerned that compromising the 15% auto terror of coming and hurts american automakers -- auto tariffs hurts automakers. going down to 15%? where did the 25% come from? it came from there. just so you know.

they pay nothing for years and now they are paying 15%. some things could pay more. ships could pay more, pharmaceuticals could pay more. with a car you have to make 50% before you make a profit. don't forget the european union is paying our country because of tariffs $950 billion. you're talking about one year. $950 billion. japan is paying a $650 billion. these are countries that paid us nothing until i came along. china is paying us a tremendous tariff. you know what the tariff is? >> it is 30% for the fentanyl as -- >> 20% for the fentanyl but overall is about 55%. that is as opposed to nothing. would you say that is a difference? we have a big decision coming

up. if the supreme court rules the way hopefully they will. every legal expert says we win that case. we still have to watch. the supreme court has been terrific, i think they're very fair. all i want is fairness and we win. if we win the supreme court case which is the finalization of the tariffs we will be by far the richest country anywhere in the world to be able to help our people more and help other countries when we want to. i will say if we win this case our country -- you see what we have taken on a temporary basis. we have taken in billions of dollars. we will be by far the richest country in the world. you know one other thing? we will have tremendous power to negotiate. i settled seven wars. four of them was because i was able to use tariffs.

>> some ceos make hundreds of times more in salaries and the average workers. are you worried about polarization. you share that concern? >> don't forget i'm a popular rest. there is a big gap -- i'm a populist. there is a big gap. i have accomplished a lot but it takes two to tango. those are two people, president zelenskyy and president putin who hate each other and it looks like i've to sit in the room with them. there is great hatred. that meeting accomplished a lot. >> do you have confidence in kash patel? what are you hoping comes from his testimony? >> i think pam bondi has done an incredible job. kash, take a look at what he did with respect to this horrible

person he just captured. he did it in two days. it took other similar cases four days or five days, years if you look at certain shooters. i have confidence in everybody in the administration. my administration, and a lot of people are saying it, not just me, it is so far the best administration ever formed. you look at our financial people . our country is making a fortune. we have to keep tariffs because our country has become successful because of tariffs. we have the case in the supreme court. that is a very vital case on the success of our country. it is vital to negotiate with other countries. other countries charge us tariffs. if we win that case our country will be by far the richest country anywhere in the world and then we can help our people, we will get rid of debt and get rid of everything. we can help our people and other countries.

>> narcotics in venezuela? are you getting ready to invade his country? what is your message to him? >> i would say stop sending into the united states. stop sending drugs in united states. we knocked up three boats, not two. the problem is there a very few boats on the water. not a lot of boats on the water i'm even fishing boats. nobody wants to take a fish. it is one of those things. i would say to him very strongly, stop sending people from your prisons into our country. they are sending their prisons. the numbers just came out. another month with zero people getting into our country. these are people like you who would like me to do badly. nobody is ever done on the

border like i have done. he will have to get going and make a deal. president zelenskyy will have to make a deal. europe has to stop buying oil from russia. ok? they have to stop buying oil from russia. >> how much wealthier are you now than when he returned to the white house? >> i don't know about the deals i make other than what my kids are doing. most of the deals i've made were made before. that is what i've done my whole life. do you see that area? that is going to be the greatest ballroom anywhere in the world. it gives me pleasure to do it for the country. i am paying for it. i am paying for it.

there is an expensive ballroom i think it will cost $250 million. i think it will be the finest. for 100 50 years they have one today ballroom and now they will finally have it. it will knock your socks off. >> do you think a president in office should be engaged in so much business activity? >> i am not. >> where are you from? >> i am from the australian broadcasting corporation. >> in my opinion you are hurting australia very much. they want to get along with me. your leader is coming over to see me. i will tell him about you, you set a very bad thing. client. -- quiet. >> what are you hearing about the operation in gaza? >> i am hearing that they want

to go in but i am also hearing hamas wants to take hostages. they want to put them in the way of any attack. nobody is happy about that situation. it came out yesterday. supposedly they have taken the hostages out of deep caves and tunnels they are putting them on the front lines. nobody has heard of that for a few centuries. >> de un's that israel is guilty of genocide. there is a report that says multiple acts of genocide. >> it will come to a vote and we will see what happens. >> what you make of pam bondi saying she will go after hate speech? >> she will probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. you have a lot of hate in your heart. >> with that be appropriate? >> abc paid me $60 million for a form of hate speech.

your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech so maybe they will have to go after you. we want everything to be fair, it has not been fair in the radical left has done tremendous damage to the country but we are fixing it. we have the hottest country anywhere in the world. one year ago our country was dead. now washington, d.c. is fixed and i fixed it. the mayor was fine. the mayor was just fine. the mayor had the city for many years. the one to fix it was me and my people. it is so safe. you should take your beautiful wife and have dinner. he will not be shot or accosted or looked at indirectly by anybody. washington, d.c. is safe. now we are going to memphis where it is rough and then we will have to go catch a friend of mine who is a big